Zhao v. Sessions

16-1687 Zhao v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A205 043 057 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 11th day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RUXING ZHAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1687 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Aminat Sabak, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 27 Hogan, Assistant Director; Lindsay 28 C. Dunn, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ruxing Zhao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 6, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA, affirming a March 26, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhao’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ruxing Zhao, No. A205 043 057 11 (B.I.A. May 6, 2016), aff’g No. A205 043 057 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Mar. 26, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). We review the agency’s adverse credibility 18 determination for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 20 (2d Cir. 2008). 21 For asylum applications like Zhao’s, governed by the REAL 22 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 23 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an applicant’s 2 1 “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” “the inherent 2 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,” and on 3 inconsistencies in ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals